jrockster21 Posted June 20, 2005 Share Posted June 20, 2005 Very simple poll - would you swap all of Dallas' offseason moves (draft picks and free-agency) for Washington's, straight up? This does not include Sean Taylor's little escapade, so don't factor that into your choice. A cowboy fan has said that anyone on this board would swap Washington's offseason acquisitions for Dallas', straight up which is the motivation behind this poll. I vehemently disagree with the thought. Here is the exact quote: But you can bet dollars to donuts that any member on this board would swap our free agency and draft for yours straight up right now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zoony Posted June 20, 2005 Share Posted June 20, 2005 Originally posted by jrockster77 Very simple poll - A very simple answer. Duck Fallas. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Josh90286 Posted June 20, 2005 Share Posted June 20, 2005 we are different teams aka different needs, so why would we? Yes, I'd kill for Drew Bledsoe. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
autographcollector Posted June 20, 2005 Share Posted June 20, 2005 no Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skinsfan080 Posted June 20, 2005 Share Posted June 20, 2005 Most defintley not. The things they upgraded in have absolutley no barring for our team. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bubba9497 Posted June 20, 2005 Share Posted June 20, 2005 HELL NO! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Monkart Posted June 20, 2005 Share Posted June 20, 2005 Originally posted by zoony A very simple answer. Duck Fallas. :laugh: :laugh: Along the lines of zoony NELL HO!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Art Posted June 20, 2005 Share Posted June 20, 2005 It's an impossible question to answer because it doesn't factor in the base both teams have upon which additions were made. Certainly if you had NO players and asked which group of players you'd prefer this offseason, you'd probably take the Dallas group. But, the Cowboys had so much more work to do to improve their talent level they had to add more to the existing base. We were very far ahead of them in terms of having a complete roster, we were able to solidify areas of concern without dramatic changes. So, sure, I'd take the players the Cowboys got this offseason over our players in a scenario where both teams started with no one. But, given what we had going in versus what they had, if you asked which offseason was better, I'd say -- as all Cowboy fans would say -- ours was better. Some Cowboy fans will not understand what I mean here and protest they wouldn't agree. To which I'll explain if you had a choice of adding several starters in free agency or doing relatively little because of solid roster composition, which would you prefer. They will then understand, get real quiet, then, pretend they own me. It'll be fun. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jrockster21 Posted June 20, 2005 Author Share Posted June 20, 2005 Originally posted by Art It's an impossible question to answer because it doesn't factor in the base both teams have upon which additions were made. Certainly if you had NO players and asked which group of players you'd prefer this offseason, you'd probably take the Dallas group. But, the Cowboys had so much more work to do to improve their talent level they had to add more to the existing base. We were very far ahead of them in terms of having a complete roster, we were able to solidify areas of concern without dramatic changes. So, sure, I'd take the players the Cowboys got this offseason over our players in a scenario where both teams started with no one. But, given what we had going in versus what they had, if you asked which offseason was better, I'd say -- as all Cowboy fans would say -- ours was better. Some Cowboy fans will not understand what I mean here and protest they wouldn't agree. To which I'll explain if you had a choice of adding several starters in free agency or doing relatively little because of solid roster composition, which would you prefer. They will then understand, get real quiet, then, pretend they own me. It'll be fun. :laugh: This is the comment made by the Cowboy fan (name not included): But you can bet dollars to donuts that any member on this board would swap our free agency and draft for yours straight up right now. Which to me means, all other things being equal, swap straight up, with the teams we both already had. I'm going to put this into the original poll question as well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jrockster21 Posted June 20, 2005 Author Share Posted June 20, 2005 Originally posted by Art So, sure, I'd take the players the Cowboys got this offseason over our players in a scenario where both teams started with no one. But, given what we had going in versus what they had, if you asked which offseason was better, I'd say -- as all Cowboy fans would say -- ours was better. I wouldn't even do that, because the Skins offseason consisted of drafting two of the most important positions in football; cornerback and quarterback. So if you were starting with zero players, wouldn't your first choice be a quarterback? Especially a quarterback that Joe Gibbs sees something special in? A man who won 3 superbowls with 3 different QBs?? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zoony Posted June 20, 2005 Share Posted June 20, 2005 If memory serves, seems like there was statistical research done showing that Dline was the riskiest 1st day draft position. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Art Posted June 20, 2005 Share Posted June 20, 2005 Originally posted by jrockster77 I wouldn't even do that, because the Skins offseason consisted of drafting two of the most important positions in football; cornerback and quarterback. So if you were starting with zero players, wouldn't your first choice be a quarterback? Especially a quarterback that Joe Gibbs sees something special in? A man who won 3 superbowls with 3 different QBs?? To be honest, I'd have to look at the moves entirely, and perhaps you're right, all things being equal, we wouldn't take the players they got over the ones we got. But, things weren't equal, so, it's irrelevant. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jrockster21 Posted June 20, 2005 Author Share Posted June 20, 2005 Originally posted by Art To be honest, I'd have to look at the moves entirely, and perhaps you're right, all things being equal, we wouldn't take the players they got over the ones we got. But, things weren't equal, so, it's irrelevant. Yeah it is irrelevant. Plus, you would think the Cowboy fans would want to switch with us, seeing as how after Bledsoe there are only Drew Henson and Tony Romo sits to pee on the roster as backups. I'd take Campbell over either of them any day of the week! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
THEHEREAFTER Posted June 20, 2005 Share Posted June 20, 2005 Originally posted by Art It's an impossible question to answer because it doesn't factor in the base both teams have upon which additions were made. Certainly if you had NO players and asked which group of players you'd prefer this offseason, you'd probably take the Dallas group. But, the Cowboys had so much more work to do to improve their talent level they had to add more to the existing base. We were very far ahead of them in terms of having a complete roster, we were able to solidify areas of concern without dramatic changes. So, sure, I'd take the players the Cowboys got this offseason over our players in a scenario where both teams started with no one. But, given what we had going in versus what they had, if you asked which offseason was better, I'd say -- as all Cowboy fans would say -- ours was better. Some Cowboy fans will not understand what I mean here and protest they wouldn't agree. To which I'll explain if you had a choice of adding several starters in free agency or doing relatively little because of solid roster composition, which would you prefer. They will then understand, get real quiet, then, pretend they own me. It'll be fun. Art I certainly understand your points but I disagree in one area. I think that many Redskins fans are overestimating the talent level of your team especially on the defensive side of the ball. It's easy to fall into a false sense of security given your ranking last year. Trust me, I know this very well. I think your DC is a pure genious but I just don't know if he can sustain last years level with this years team. I know everyone here discounts Pierce and Smoot leaving but replacing them still remains to be seen. Call me crazy, but I also think Lavar BACK and sustaining last years level will be a challenge but that's a whole other discussion. Getting back to the two offseasons... it's hard to argue that adding the likes of DeMarcus Ware, Marcus Spears, Jason Ferguson and Chris Canty to your D-line would not only give you crazy depth. This would also allow GW to not have to rely as heavily on the blitz. I know you're in love with your fullbacks but Marion Barber and A-train would provide back up and switch up for Portis quite nicely. Anthony Henry and Aaron Glenn could help your secondary and I like Burnett better than your LB's. Look, I know you don't necessarily need all these parts but I would be a little bit worried about facing the skins if we literally swopped off-seasons. I wouldn't be excited if say we added Jason Campbell (not to mention what you gave up to get him), Carlos Rogers, David Patten your fullbacks and LB's you drafted etc? With that said you may become the #1 D and go 10-6 this year? I realize this is all fantasy, my point is the Skins are still a 6-10 team @ the end of the day who do not have the luxery of a N.E. or Philly draft strategy. This all remains to be seen of-course. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Monte51Coleman Posted June 20, 2005 Share Posted June 20, 2005 I don't doubt that Redskin fans over-estimate the talent on their team. I don't doubt that Cowboy fans do either. Last year two of our biggest perceived problems by outsiders were the mlb position and the addition of Springs replacing Bailey. That didn't work out so bad, did it? Why would anyone think that this year replacing Pierce and Smoot is going to turn out any differently? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arsenic Posted June 20, 2005 Share Posted June 20, 2005 Originally posted by THEHEREAFTER my point is the Skins are still a 6-10 team @ the end of the day who do not have the luxery of a N.E. or Philly draft strategy. This all remains to be seen of-course. Lets not forget that the Cowboys also finished 6-10. So in that respect, at the end of the day, the Cowboys are still a 6-10 team aswell. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dallsux Posted June 20, 2005 Share Posted June 20, 2005 Are you smokin' crack, Dude? :insane: :dallasuck Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bedlamVR Posted June 20, 2005 Share Posted June 20, 2005 Its different schemes and different needs . Dallas offseason moves were good Dallas ours good for us . Ours look more to building a franchise, Dallas looks to be trying to win now as Parcells starts packing his bags again . Dallas has picked up aging Oline help in Rivera who was good in green bay but the packers line was looking old last year . They have addressed the QB of right in Bledsoe now but done nothing for the QB of the future as Bill seems to have little faith in Henson, and gambled with rookie D line help possibly resulting in thier best established D lineman Glover being off the field for 2/3s of a game. And the pick up of Glenn may work out well but DBs preformance on field does has the habbitt of faling off alarmingly as age creaps up on them Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bedlamVR Posted June 20, 2005 Share Posted June 20, 2005 That said I do see Dallas being extremly competitive julius Jones has the tools to be one of the best in the leugue and Parcells will always get a competitive team on the field. ... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jtyler42 Posted June 20, 2005 Share Posted June 20, 2005 :no: :puke: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thiebear Posted June 20, 2005 Share Posted June 20, 2005 I wish we would have gotten your picks.... but we didnt, thus making your team a 6-10 to 15-1 wonder in one year and we are doomed... dooomed i tell you to suffer because we didnt get your picks... for some reason the Experts cant figure out year to year but Dallas' picks will change all that.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
THEHEREAFTER Posted June 20, 2005 Share Posted June 20, 2005 Originally posted by Arsenic Lets not forget that the Cowboys also finished 6-10. So in that respect, at the end of the day, the Cowboys are still a 6-10 team aswell. Exactly, and we treated our off-season as such. While I don't think the skins needed an overhaul, I don't quite see your off-season as a success. I was just responding to the stanpoint of the skins needing very little and resting on last years #1 D. I do agree however, that a "quieter" off-season was sorely needed in D.C.. I just don't know if was a success-- remains to be seen. Do I think the Boys off-season immediately makes us a contender overnight? No way but I think we're far ahead of last years team. Parcells has not given up on Henson. He made the move to get him. He just realizes that it was not time to turn the team over to him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Major Harris Posted June 20, 2005 Share Posted June 20, 2005 Originally posted by skinsfan080 Most defintley not. The things they upgraded in have absolutley no barring for our team. we don't need a DE? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Goaldeje Posted June 20, 2005 Share Posted June 20, 2005 Originally posted by THEHEREAFTER Exactly, and we treated our off-season as such. While I don't think the skins needed an overhaul, I don't quite see your off-season as a success. I was just responding to the stanpoint of the skins needing very little and resting on last years #1 D. I do agree however, that a "quieter" off-season was sorely needed in D.C.. I just don't know if was a success-- remains to be seen. Do I think the Boys off-season immediately makes us a contender overnight? No way but I think we're far ahead of last years team. Parcells has not given up on Henson. He made the move to get him. He just realizes that it was not time to turn the team over to him. Nice to see a Cowboys fan who understands a quieter off season is not a bad off season. You are far ahead talent wise of last year's team. Now you need time. Gibbs clearly felt we have talent and now can give us continuity and time. My question to you is this: what moves would have qualified our off season as a success? WHat areas specifically should we have addressed? And while you're at it, please address Bledsoe. I have never been able to get a satisfactory answer as to how that benefits the Boys at all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fred Jones Posted June 20, 2005 Share Posted June 20, 2005 The pukes filled some of their needs as one poster noted above. I have to agree that they made some nice moves for their team, however, I like what the skins did this off-season and would not swap picks. Yes, both teams finished 6-10, but IMHO the skins started out the off-season with a more talented team and less holes to fill. We have three pro-bowl caliber players returning from injury. None of them really contributed in 2004. Williams will replace Pierce and you won't see a drop off. Not because he is a genius, but because someone will step up and fill the hole. So far Carlos Rodgers has impressed the coaches. If he turns out to be as advertisized, he would be an upgrade over Smoot. People say we paid a heavy price for Campbell. If he turns out to be as good as people at Redskins Park think he can become, the price is actually pretty cheap. QB is the only position you give up mulitple picks for. Like the skins and Ramsey, the pukes will win or lose based on what Bledsoe does this year. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.